The NY Times has two equally stupid columnists, Nicholas Kristof, a
knee-jerk liberal, and David Brooks, a knee-jerk conservative.

Both however do support gay marriage.

And, in a column which appears today, Kristof agrees with our view that
the Bible condemns anal sex while supporting other forms of homosex:

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old
Testament does condemn at least male anal sex ... While homosexuality
never made the Top 10 lists of commandments, a plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other
practices that the text condemns ... (Leviticus 19:19).

...

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass
gay [sic] relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays [sic]. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs [sic] between David and Jonathan.

David and Jonathan did not have "gay affairs"; they couldn't, because there was no such thing as a "gay" person or "gay" sex, both of which are late 20th century AD constructs, in the 10th century BC.

They could have loved each other, as they without question did, and
they may have expressed that love through sex; because men have loved each other and had sex with each other since the beginning of time.

But they weren't "gay"; the word is meaningless in their context.

Among other things, both men were married and had children.

Nor were they out hitting the bars every night.

So while the text in the first and second book of Samuel does not
describe "gay affairs between David and Jonathan," it is unequivocal in
describing a relationship of mutual love and devotion, with a strong
suggestion of a sexual component, between two renowned warriors.

It states that "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David
... Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul."

There's no doubt of that: Jonathan risks not just his father's wrath, but his own life, to protect David.

Long after Jonathan's heroic death in battle, and throughout the
vicissitudes of David's long rule, David consistently watches out for and cares for Jonathan's crippled son -- he never fails in that duty, "for Jonathan thy father's sake."

It's a beautiful story, and unequivocal in its description of a loving relationship between two men, both warriors, which endures long after one has been killed.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the
beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn't blanch.

Yep.

Jesus never rejected anyone.

We can contrast Jesus' attitude with that of folks in the "religious" right, many of whom have scurried off to Sub-Saharan Africa to care for the AIDS afflicted while ignoring rising HIV infection rates and the brutal toll taken by AIDS on the Black community right here in America, where AIDS kills more Black men between 25 and 44 than any other disease.

In both Africa and America, HIV / AIDS is spread by sexual promiscuity, which the Bible unequivocally condemns.

The only difference between Africa and America is that in the former
the promiscuity is predominantly heterosexual, and here at home the
promiscuity is mainly homosexual.

Yet just as the Bible is unequivocal in its praise of Jonathan and
David's warrior love, it's unequivocal in its condemnation of heterosexual promiscuity, which often falls under the rubric of adultery -- that is, heterosex outside of marriage, *including* heterosex between divorced men and women.

The punishment for adultery is death by stoning.

Nevertheless, American evangelical churches are full of people who are divorced and remarried, and thus adulterers.

The churches wink at the adulterers in their midst because they have
to.

If they started tossing out adulterers, the pews would be empty, as
would the collection plates.

They set great store by those plates, despite another unequivocal
admonition by Jesus: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth."

There's never been a greater group of hypocrites and frauds on this
earth than the religious right.

Patrick adds:

What the Bible forbids is a person behaving as the opposite gender
during a sexual act.

A man cannot emulate a woman and a woman cannot emulate a man -- to do so is truly fornication, just as heterosex outside of marriage is
fornication -- which denies our Creation in God's own image, having the
breath of His life in us. To act otherwise denies the Divine nature of
humanity; instead of imitating the Divine, it imitates the animal.

Thus anal sex is a gross sin on more than one count -- it's
fornication; and while it's not heresy, which is promulgating false doctrine, it imitates the animal, which is anathema to the Divine nature of humanity.

By the way, the centurion whose servant Jesus heals is a warrior too, saying to Jesus, "For I am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it."